One of the things about Global warming and the greenhouse effect is that there are a number of theories currently being examined. I think the easiest answer is that the complex nature of the problems mean that predicting events and trends are not easy either. We just don't know... which means that TDAT can cherrypick the best bits to make a dramatic film (though parts are, I understand based on current thinking... not much, but bits!).

For example, there could be warming combined with the return of the Ice Age - as we are in the middle of an interstacial period now (between Ice Ages). It has been argued that the Earth will balance out such changes and that these changes are indeed part of the natural order of these things - we've just not been around long enough to remember the last one!

Perhaps one of the key events will be the changes to the sea levels (which may rise, may not rise, may rise very suddenly or rise, then slow down!) and the consequential effects on global climates and ocean currents. One of the current thoughts (LOL) here in the UK is that although we could end up with a more Mediterranean-type climate, a change in ocean currents along the west coast of Britain, caused by a change in ocean currents may mean that the warming effect of the Gulf Stream Drift is lost, which will lead to a cooling down of the west coast landmass and the return of Ice... just too many variables.

It really makes me depressed to think about the future of the world, but I say it is not my judgement to determine its fate or future.

You know, SubZ, I'd disagree with that - shouldn't you have a say in how you want the Earth to be in the future?

This is a bit of a nitpick, but the scientist in my cries out: "No theories of global warming have anything to do with the Earth's distance to the Sun!"

<begin pedantic scientific lecture mode>

Yes, the Earth naturally goes through cooling & warming cycles. However, the real question about global warming is if human activity is: a) accelerating, b) decelerating, or c)totally throwing out of whack all of the complex interrelated cycles that go into making our climate.

The Earth moves around the Sun in an eliptical orbit, completing that orbit once per year. The seasons are not, however, dependant on that orbit, but on the Earth's axial tilt that causes the Northern hemisphere to face towards the sun in their "Summer" and away from the sun in their "Winter," likewise causing the lengthening & shortening of days. Yes, for a part of the year the Earth is farther away from the Sun (at aphelion) or closer to the sun (at perihelion), but the difference is miniscule compared the the 8 lightminutes average distance between us and the sun, and is not the cause of cooling or warming.

Ok here goes: Subzero: but logically when we reach the colder side of the sun it will be impossible for another ice age ( even a scientist who watched the movie and agreed with the ice age impossible thing) due to the fact that the sun will still warm the earth, making the ice melt soon after it gathers.

I donīt get this, could just be me, not being all that smart and all, but if we get to the COLDER side, wonīt the earth get COLDER? So it will be possible for another ice age to ocure.

Hobbit: For example, there could be warming combined with the return of the Ice Age - as we are in the middle of an interstacial period now (between Ice Ages). It has been argued that the Earth will balance out such changes and that these changes are indeed part of the natural order of these things - we've just not been around long enough to remember the last one!

This is what Iīm trying to say. I probably just described it the wrong way, since my english isnīt all that good and Iīm obvious no scientist.(Thnx for explaining it this way Hobbit ) Of course there are lots of theories and who knows which one is right. But this is the one I think is most likely.

Archren: The Earth moves around the Sun in an eliptical orbit, completing that orbit once per year.

Yes, but this orbid shift a little bit every year, doesnīt it? Thatīs what causes the change in climate over the years. I think.

I know there are a lot of different theories, and I have of course no idea which one is the right one. This is what I choose to believe in. I know that humans abusing the earth is partly reason for the greenhouse effect, I just think humans overestimate themselfs, thinking they can cause all these enormous changes in the climate. I heard the toxic fumes that cars produce also come out of the earth in bubbles at certain places ( donīt ask me where ok ) and these bubbles launche more toxic fumes into the atmosphere in an instant then humans do all year.
Donīt get me wrong, I am angry about the way some humans use the earth which profides us with almost everything we need to survive. She hasnīt done enough harm to deserve such a treadment. I myself am very conscious about the environment: I only use public transport, use as little dispossible product as possible, donīt buy fireworks etc. ( In fact Iīm a veggie, but thatīs a different point . )

Ah. I'm not familiar with interstatial (a quick google brought up hits on cystitis!), so I thought I'd ask. When I did my anthropology degree, we referred to interglacial periods (or inter-glacial), and glacial maximums.

No problem. Clearly had my 'lecturing-head' on when using that one. Sometimes you can get carried away by the language....

Crichton's book seems an interesting idea, though I'm not sure I buy it - namely, that politics drives scientific research and that global warming is used by politicians as a means of global control. No surprises with the first part - both The Day After Tomorrow and Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio uses that one. But as a means of global control? Well, he knows more about it than I do. Seems like an entertaining read, if I can avoid treating it like a textbook.

Haven't much to say about the movie - apart from that I thought it entertaining but did not like it much. (Burning books instead of the wooden shelves, the wolves did not convince me etc.)

The reason for posting is actually State of Fear:
Hobbit, did you buy/read it? I personally have not ever read a Crichton book, but I have recently developed an aversion to him. I know, it's problematic to say this without reading - but I am not judging his writing style here. Okay, let's say I have become skeptical.

Anyway, an interesting site about climate is Real Climate by real climate scientists - and it has some posts about State of Fear, starting here (with interesting comments . . .).

And I will leave now with just one question: Crichton = SF writer or mainstream? Where to put him - or a thread about him, which might be interesting.